Thoughts on Life, Love, Politics, Hypocrisy and Coming Out in Mid-Life

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

How the GOP Became the "White Man's Party"

I've noted before that I hail from a family that long supported the Republican Party and that I myself held a City Committee seat in Virginia Beach for eight years before resigning in disgust as the GOP became increasingly racist and controlled by religious extremists of the Christian Right who sought to merge their extremists beliefs with the civil laws. These are the people I call the Christofascists. And in the years since I resigned from the GOP, the party has become increasingly horrible with the racism becoming ever more overt. A piece in Salon looks at how the GOP became so racist commencing in earnest under Barry Goldwater and later Richard Nixon and his "Southern Strategy." A second, older piece also looks at the rise of the Christofascists within the GOP which, in my view has only intensified the white supremacist agenda of the GOP a separate post will look at this piece). Here are excerpts from the first piece:

The Republican Party today, in its voters and in its elected officials,
is almost all white. But it wasn’t always like that. Indeed, in the
decades immediately before 1964, neither party was racially identified
in the eyes of the American public. Even as the Democratic Party on the
national level increasingly embraced civil rights, partly as a way to
capture the growing political power of blacks who had migrated to
Northern cities, Southern Democrats—like George Wallace— remained
staunch defenders of Jim Crow.

The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the
realignment we live with today. Where in 1962 both parties were
perceived as equally, if tepidly, supportive of civil rights, two years
later 60 percent of the public identified Democrats as more likely to
pursue fair treatment, versus only 7 percent who so identified the
Republican Party. What happened?

Groundwork for the shift was laid
in the run-up to the 1964 election by rightwing elements in the
Republican Party, which gained momentum from the loss of the
then-moderate Nixon to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This faction of the
party had never stopped warring against the New Deal.By 1961, however, Goldwater and his partisans had become convinced that
the key to electoral success lay in gaining ground in the South, and
that in turn required appealing to racist sentiments in white voters,
even at the cost of black support. As Goldwater drawled, “We’re not
going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to
go hunting where the ducks are.”

As the conservative journalist Robert Novak reported after attending a
meeting of the Republican National Committee in Denver during the summer
of 1963: “A good many, perhaps a majority of the party’s leadership,
envision substantial political gold to be mined in the racial crisis by
becoming in fact, though not in name, the White Man’s Party.

The rise of a racially-identified GOP is not a tale of latent bigotry in
that party. It is instead a story centered on the strategic decision to
use racism to become “the White Man’s Party.”

Running for president in 1964, the Arizonan strode across the South,
hawking small-government bromides and racially coded appeals. In terms
of the latter, he sold his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a
bold stand in favor of “states’ rights” and “freedom of association.” . . . . in the South this meant first and foremost the right of business owners
to exclude blacks from hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and retail
establishments. Like [George] Wallace, Goldwater had learned how to talk about
blacks without ever mentioning race.

Late in the [1968] campaign, Nixon opted to publicly tack right on race. He had
already reached a backroom deal with South Carolina Senator Strom
Thurmond— an arch-segregationist who had led the revolt against the
Democratic Party in 1948 when it endorsed a modest civil rights plank,
and who switched to become a Republican in 1964 to throw his weight
behind Goldwater. Nixon bought Thurmond’s support during the primary
season by secretly promising that he would restrict federal enforcement
of school desegregation in the South. Now he would make this same
promise to the nation. On October 7, Nixon came out against “forced
busing,” an increasingly potent euphemism for the system of transporting
students across the boundaries of segregated neighborhoods in order to
integrate schools.

Nixon also began to hammer away at the issue of law and order. In doing
so, he drew upon a rhetorical frame rooted in Southern resistance to
civil rights. From the inception of the civil rights movement in the
1950s, Southern politicians had disparaged racial activists as
“lawbreakers,” as indeed technically they were. In the Jim Crow regions,
African Americans had long pressed basic equality demands precisely by
breaking laws mandating segregation: sit-ins and freedom rides
purposefully violated Jim Crow statutes in order to challenge white
supremacist social norms. Dismissing these protesters as criminals
shifted the issue from a defense of white supremacy to a more
neutral-seeming concern with “order,” while simultaneously stripping the
activists of moral stature.

Nixon had mastered Wallace’s dark art. Forced bussing, law and order,
and security from unrest as the essential civil right of the
majority—all of these were coded phrases that allowed Nixon to appeal to
racial fears without overtly mentioning race at all. Yet race remained
the indisputable, intentional subtext of the appeal. As Nixon exulted
after watching one of his own commercials: “Yep, this hits it right on
the nose . . . it’s all about law and order and the damn Negro-Puerto
Rican groups out there.”

The Southern strategy, incipient for a decade, had matured into a clear
route to electoral dominance. The old Democratic alliance of
Northeastern liberals, the white working class, Northern blacks, and
Southern Democrats, could be riven by racial appeals. Beginning in 1970,
Richard Nixon embraced the politics of racial division wholeheartedly.

Defeated by the Southern strategy, McGovern neatly summed it up: “What
is the Southern Strategy? It is this. It says to the South: Let the poor
stay poor, let your economy trail the nation, forget about decent homes
and medical care for all your people, choose officials who will oppose
every effort to benefit the many at the expense of the few—and in
return, we will try to overlook the rights of the black man, appoint a
few southerners to high office, and lift your spirits by attacking the
‘eastern establishment’ whose bank accounts we are filling with your
labor and your industry.” McGovern erred in supposing that the
Southern strategy pertained only to the South. Nixon had already learned
from Wallace, and then later from the number crunchers, that coded
racial appeals would work nationwide. Other than that, especially in its
class and race dimensions, McGovern had dog whistle politics dead to
rights.

What's frightening is that the GOP's current racism was planned from the start and has only intensified as the Christofacists and their Tea Party cousins have grown in power. It is politics based on hate and resentment and it is nothing less than dangerous.

Translate This Page

Contact Me to Order Title Work

LGBT Legal Services

About Me

Out gay attorney in a committed relationship; formerly married and father of three wonderful children; sometime activist and political/news junkie; survived coming out in mid-life and hope to share my experiences and reflections with others.
In the career/professional realm, I have merged my aw firm - Michael B. Hamar, P.C. - with Dillon Law group PLC and become affiliated with Liberty Title & Escrow Co.. I practice in the areas of real estate, estate planning (Wills, Trusts, Advanced Medical Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney); business law and commercial transactions; formation of corporations and LLC's; and legal services to the gay, lesbian and transgender community, including birth certificate amendment.

Disclaimer on Opinions and Content

This Blog contains content that may be innapropriate for readers under the legal age of 18. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, PLEASE LEAVE NOW. Thank you

This is an opinion and commentary blog and the opinions and contents of this Blog - including opinions expressed concerning opponents of LGBT equality - are the opinions only of the individual blogger and should not be attributed to any other individuals or to any organization of which the blogger is a past or current member.

Followers

Michael-in-Norfolk disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability, or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images or articles featured on this site, unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to it's respectful owners. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies, and Michael-in-Norfolk does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. If you own rights to any of the images or articles, and do not wish them to appear on this site, please contact Michael-in-Norfolk via e-mail and they will be promptly removed. Michael-in-Norfolk contains links to other Internet sites. These links are provided solely as a convenience and are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information or content in such site has been endorsed or approved by this blog.